Addiction update: State of Addiction Address, part three

This column reflects my personal views, experience and research. It is not affiliated with or representing any other entity, public or private.

Drug companies are supposed to create safe drugs and inform doctors as to their safe use. The FDA is supposed to make sure that they do. Congress is supposed to provide legislative oversight.

My research indicates that various forms of influence are preventing things from happening the way they are supposed to happen.

The majority of pressure upon the political process comes from profit-driven industries. A watchdog group, Americans for Campaign Reform, reports that the pharmaceutical industry is the biggest contributor to political campaigns. ACR reports that in 2008 House members received average campaign contributions of $25,277, and Senate members $81,891. The actual amounts each member received depended on how much influence the person was likely to have over pending legislation. If you were in a leadership role or served on a relevant committee the figure was much higher. This influence buying obviously works.

Public opinion is also influenced. At the state level, swaying opinions regarding voter initiatives that might be hazardous to corporate profits can be a simple matter of outspending the other side. In California outspending appears to have convinced voters that they don't have a right to know if a food product contains genetically modified organisms. Industries making money from GMOs funded the ads.

Swaying public opinion in such matters thwarts the public initiative process. Recent history has shown that the public can be persuaded to vote against profit threatening initiatives.

Influencing public opinion is one way that corporations protect themselves from the forces of democracy. A recent Supreme Court ruling determined there should be no limit on the amount of money a corporation can spend influencing the political process. Another watchdog group, Public Citizen, reported that in the 1999-2000 election cycle, the pharmaceutical industry spent 65 million dollars supporting or attacking candidates that they thought would be helpful or hurtful to the profit motive.

Drug companies say they need all this profit to further their research and development. ProQuest is an information sharing company. An article by Amy Shaw appearing on the ProQuest website indicates that drug companies spend "nearly twice as much on marketing in the U.S. as they do on research and development." Much of this is direct to consumer TV ads of prescription medicines.

In 2005, Shaw reports, the $4.2 billion spent influencing the public was rivaled by the $7.2 billion they spent "on promotion to physicians." Influencing doctors had proven to have an even greater affect on profits.

The Center for Public Integrity reports that U.S. citizens pay more for medicines than any other country in the world. We are funding promotion that we neither need nor want.

This series of columns is about encouraging we the people to adopt a healthy level of interest in our own health, and healthy level of self-preservation regarding the for-profit pharmaceutical industry.

What does this have to do with addiction? Stay tuned.

Comments, questions or suggestions for future topics can be sent to dnfultz@yahoo.com.